Evidence of meeting #45 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
It reads:
(3) In carrying out the review, the Minister shall hold public consultations that include
(a) the participation of both industry and non-industry stakeholders; and
(b) the participation of any parliamentary committee that may be designated or established to review matters relating to nuclear energy.
We just believe that this will cover the interests that Mr. Cullen had here, and it allows for participation. It also allows for the appropriate committees to be part of it as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Fantastic work.
Is it agreed by the committee to proceed in this fashion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Cullen, I think you're indicating yes. Go ahead.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. Again, thanks for the work from the parliamentary secretary.
My apologies to all those either in the Senate or hoping to get there one day. It's easy to forget they sometimes involve themselves in this, although I haven't heard them yet.
The idea of this, again, is to be open as much as possible, and I think open and transparent government is in everyone's best interest. And particularly when the government has involved itself in the private sector, as it has in the nuclear industry, when we look to review these things the public should be given as much opportunity as possible.
This committee is not named here, but it would stand, in due course, that it would be a similar composition to this in the future and be directed to review this. I think it's important to keep that accountability loop, particularly as members of Parliament change and we keep that corporate knowledge up.
Again, thanks for the extra work.
December 7th, 2009 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Madame Brunelle.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I had a question earlier. I wanted to know if amendment NDP-6 had been withdrawn.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, it was withdrawn and the other amendment replaced it. I did actually ask for agreement of the committee to proceed in that fashion.
(Clause 22 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 23--Obligation of operator)
On clause 23, Mr. Cullen, do you want to move your amendment NDP-9?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I believe this is another one of those that's going to require royal recommendation. I'm just wondering whether we challenge that ahead of time, or after Mr. Cullen makes his amendment.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
That is correct, Mr. Anderson, but you give the member a chance to make the argument first, okay?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This was a concern raised by Madam Brunelle and some of the witnesses as well.
Under the law right now in this proposed bill, locations with one reactor are treated exactly the same as locations with many reactors. That's an unusual part of the Canadian design; you can have many reactors at one site.
As we try to understand liability and risk, we know that the more reactors, the more moving parts, the greater the risk. What we're trying to do in NDP-10 is identify that it's disproportionate and actually unfair to those who have only one reactor on site, because they have to run the same liability regime as those who are running many reactors on the same site. That doesn't seem to make intuitive sense, and it certainly doesn't make any sense on a risk factor.
It's like paying the same amount for car insurance if you own one car versus ten and you drive all ten of them. Obviously, the risk is higher if there are more cars out on the road, and your insurance would be higher as well. The chance of something happening over ten is greater than it is over one. It's a statistical fact.
That's all NDP-10 seeks to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen, I do rule this amendment, NDP-10, out of order based on the fact that it does alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation.
Now, is there anything else on clause 23?
(Clause 23 agreed to on division)
(On clause 26--Reinsurance agreements)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We are now at clause 26, I believe, and amendment NDP-11. Oh, we dealt with that already, Mr. Cullen, so NDP-11 is out of order.
Now we'll go to NDP-12.